DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1:
The claim states “monitoring the contaminant concentration”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the contaminant concentration”. It is not clear what the contaminants are limited to.
The claim states “monitoring particles size of solids”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear where the particle size is being measured. All other measurement limitations are limited to each of the at least two waste streams and/or the feed stream.
The claim states “adjusting…to achieve a contaminant concentration between…” This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what is being measured as a contaminant, for example: BOD, COD PFAs, salts, solids, and anything else could be considered to be a contaminant.
The claim refers to a “slurry solids concentration”, however there is no step of measuring the slurry solids concentration in the feed stream. It is not clear if the slurry solids concentration is related to the measured viscosity or not.
Regarding Claim 2:
The claim further limits the “non-waste feedstock” however, the non-waste feedstock is optional in claim 1. It is not clear if claim 2 is requiring the feedstock or only limiting if the feedstock is present.
Regarding Claim 4:
The claim states “at least approximately 10 ppt”. The combination of “at least” and “approximately” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the claim is open to values less than 10 ppt as they are approximately 10 ppt.
Regarding Claim 8:
The claim states “prior to addition to the feed stream”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because there is no addition to the feed stream. The waste streams are combined to form the feed stream, not added to the feed stream. It is therefore not clear how there can be a “prior to” step.
Regarding Claim 10:
The claims states “monitoring devices recording contaminant concentrations”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because the claim is directed to a device, however the limitation of “recording” is directed to a process. Process and product limitations within the same claim render the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the process is required to occur or not, therefore it cannot be determined where direct infringement occurs (see MPEP 2173.050(p)). It is recommended to use “configured to” language to include functional limitations within a device claim.
Line 6 refers to “the waste stream”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claim. There is only support for the “at least two waste streams”.
The remaining claims are indefinite because they depend from indefinite claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6 does not further limit claim 1 from which it depends. The claim limits the “supercritical water oxidation reactor”, however claim 1 is directed to the “method for preparing a feed stream”. The conditions of the reactor do not further limit the method of preparing. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims contain limitations that would be allowable in view of the closest prior art. The prior art identified Jenkins et al (US 2022/0144666), Peltzer (USPN 6,224,778), Brown et al (US 2007/0034566), and Fitch et al (US 2018/0370830) do not teach the limitations as claimed. It is known in the art to combine feed stream (see for example Fitch: para. 0009, high strength wastewater and low strength wastewater, Brown: para. 0010 blended stream, Jenkins: para. 0031, at least two make up streams). However it is not known in the art to monitor all of the specific parameters claimed, or have monitoring devices for all of the parameters claimed or monitor the combined feed stream for all of the parameter claimed. In view of the closest prior art, at least monitoring the contaminant, total dissolved solids, viscosity, and salt concentration and corresponding devices in the feed stream would not have been because the conditions of the feed stream can be determined based on the waste streams (see Jenkins para, 0053 “virtual make-up stream…can be predicted”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5133. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5 F: 8-12.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramdhanie Bobby can be reached at 571-270-3240. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CLAIRE A NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 6/9/2026
Prosecution Insights